tripleC 3(2): 20-27, 2005 ISSN 1726-670X http://tripleC.uti.at Philosophical and Ethical Foundations of Systems Thinking Debora Hammond Hutchins School of Liberal Studies Sonoma State University 1801 E. Cotati Ave., Rohnert Park, CA 94928 USA [email protected] Abstract: Drawing on more than a decade of research thinking that engenders a different kind of practice; on the social implications of systems thinking, as well systems as philosophy cultivates an ethic of integration as practical experience in integrative, community-based and collaboration that has the potential to transform the approaches to education, this paper is an inquiry into nature of social organization. Although humanity still philosophical and ethical considerations growing out of has a lot to learn about living more harmoniously and recent developments in systems thinking. In his sustainably, systems thinking has made significant foundational work on general system theory, Ludwig contributions in this direction in many fields, both von Bertalanffy distinguishes between three general theoretical and practical. The challenge is to integrate developments in the systems field: systems technology, what we have learned, to communicate these insights to systems science, and systems philosophy. These three a larger audience, and to nurture institutional practices dimensions of systems thinking each nurture distinct that honor the ethical principles inherent in the systems and often widely divergent theoretical and practical view. orientations. In his abstract for this session, Gary Metcalf asks whether the systems approach really has Keywords: Theory and practice, relational knowledge, anything to offer. Science is a form of social feedback; interdependence, collaborative decision making it has created an enormous body of knowledge about the world and shaped humanity’s understanding of the Acknowledgement: Published with kind permission of Jaist- nature of our collective reality. Knowledge then informs Press. action. Assumptions built into scientific frameworks condition certain kinds of actions, as Bertalanffy has noted. Systems thinking as science nurtures a way of 1. Introduction Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s three categories of systems thinking – technology, science, and philosophy – provide a useful starting point for an analysis of the philosophical and ethical foundations of the systems field. Systems technology grew out of technological and administrative challenges confronting the industrial world during the second half of the twentieth century. The increasing complexity of modern technological systems, such as large-scale transportation, communication, manufacturing and energy systems, necessitated an unprecedented integration of knowledge and skills across a broad range of disciplines. The emergence of computers and the related field of information science provided a new set of analytical tools for modeling and managing this complexity. According to Bertalanffy, systems technology was limited by its primarily instrumental focus and an inherent tendency to shape human society into a kind of “megamachine.” The most important contribution of general systems theory, as he conceived it, was its emphasis on a more holistic and humanistic approach to knowledge and practice. For him, the reductionism of the mechanistic worldview, inherited from the scientific revolution of the 17th century, was responsible for the increasing dehumanization of the industrial world: “The acceptance of living beings as machines, the domination of the modern world by technology, and the mechanization of mankind are but the extension and practical application of the mechanistic coWnception” (Bertalanffy 1952). tripleC 3(2): 20-27, 2005 21 Systems science was a step in the right direction, reflecting a reorientation that Bertalanffy thought had become necessary in all sciences, from physics and biology to the behavioral and social sciences, emphasizing relationships between parts, as well as the importance of understanding any system in relation to its environment – or the larger system within which it exists and is itself part of a larger whole. Growing out of this shift in emphasis toward a more relational way of understanding reality, systems philosophy reflects a parallel reorientation in worldview. In contrast with the mechanistic, analytic, and linear causal paradigm of classical science, Bertalanffy proposed general system theory as a new philosophy of nature that is holistic, ecological, and integrative, emphasizing the organized nature of the world. In an early article on “General Systems Theory,” he suggests, “possibly the model of the world as a great organization can help to reinforce the sense of reverence for the living which we have almost lost” (Bertalanffy 1955). Systems philosophy begins with the fundamental questions of ontology and epistemology – what is the nature of reality and how do we know, i.e. what is the nature of our knowledge about reality? Following closely on these first two questions is the perhaps more important one: how shall we act? 2. Systems Ontology Bertalanffy’s suggestion, that viewing the world as an organized whole would foster a sense of reverence for the living, provides a starting point for an inquiry into these questions. Thirty years before the publication of James Lovelock’s (1982) Gaia hypothesis, Bertalanffy wrote that the whole of life on earth could be seen as the highest level of organization, noting that “the stream of life is maintained only in continuous flow of matter through all groups of organisms,” and “biological communities are systems of interacting components and thus display characteristic properties of systems, such as mutual interdependence, self-regulation, adaptation to disturbances, approach to states of equilibrium, etc.” (Bertalanffy 1952) From a systems perspective, then, reality is seen in terms of organization and interdependence, highlighting patterns of relationship between the various parts of a system. 2.1. The Mechanistic Worldview For Bertalanffy, general system theory was a radical departure from the mechanistic paradigm inherited from the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century. The foundation for the ontology of the modern era can be traced to the revolutionary insights of such figures as Galileo, Descartes, and Newton. And while it is important to acknowledge that these insights have led to enormous technological progress, giving humankind an unprecedented mastery of nature, Bertalanffy, like many others before and since, argued that the worldview they reinforced led to an impoverished view of humanity and, ultimately, a diminished quality of life. Indeed, the scientific method, as elaborated in Galileo’s work, explicitly eliminates any consideration of qualities, which are considered of secondary and only peripheral importance in contrast to the quantifiable dimensions, such as volume, mass, energy, and time. Newton’s laws provided a structural framework for the modern Western worldview. While they describe the forces governing the interaction of particles, they foster a view of nature as mechanistic, materialistic, and subject to deterministic, linear causality. This orientation tended to reinforce increasingly individualistic conceptions of identity and motivation, reflected in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, which laid the theoretical foundations of capitalism (and was directly inspired by Newtonian physics), as well as Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection. The kind of interaction portrayed in the Newtonian universe tended to foreground the individual, whether particle or person, in isolation, as separate and distinct from the entire web of relations within which it was embedded. And Newton’s universe was built upon the philosophical foundation laid by Descartes, through his radical separation of mind and body, and his emphasis on an analytical and reductionist approach to understanding the phenomenal world. 2.2. Challenges of the Twentieth Century tripleC 3(2): 20-27, 2005 22 Of course, scientific discoveries of the early twentieth century began to slowly chip away at the Newtonian edifice. Einstein’s theory of relativity demonstrated that matter and energy were two forms of the same thing, and that space and time were no longer absolute, but instead dependent upon the location of the observer in the complex geometry of space-time. Discoveries in quantum mechanics shifted the focus from the isolated atom to the hidden web of connections between particles at the sub- atomic level, which David Bohm has described as the “implicate order” (Bohm 1980). Undermining the pretense of scientific objectivity, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle highlighted the active role of the observer as itself a factor in the scientific process, suggesting that the very act of observing a system could potentially alter the state of the system being observed. Information emerged as a phenomenon distinct from matter/energy, embedded in the dynamic processes that give rise to complex patterns of organization. And, finally, the emphasis on understanding the relationship between organism and environment, central to Darwinian evolution, nurtured the emergence of the relatively new field of ecology, which Paul Shepard has referred to as “the subversive science” (Shepard 1969). All of these developments underscore the significance of interconnectedness and interdependence, as well as the critical role of organizing relations. Growing out of this gradual shift in orientation, systems theory emerged